advertisement

Editorial: Only the facts? - FBI findings leave additional questions

"Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way," was the way in which FBI Director James Comey wrapped up his extraordinary statement accusing Hillary Clinton and her staff of being "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information" that potentially rose to the level of "violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information" - but didn't warrant prosecution.

But in providing Ms. Clinton this hall pass, the director ventured into opinion: "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

Laws protecting classified information were potentially violated; but nothing to see here, move along despite a "federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities." Apparently it came to a call between "extremely careless" but not "grossly negligent."

Mr. Comey's opinion to the Justice Department, under the direction of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, is that no charges are appropriate. This is the same Loretta Lynch who of course met for 30 minutes with Bill Clinton in Phoenix last week after crossing flight paths with the former president because Mr. Clinton delayed departing in his private jet so he could walk across the tarmac for a private chat aboard her private jet. Ms. Lynch said the talk was casual, golf and grandchildren and such. They're both very smart and it never occurred to either one of them, apparently, that they were treading on tricky terrain - not even a "It's-great-to-see-you, but-as-you-know-we-can't-discuss-the-investigation" sentiment was shared.

While not exactly recusing herself, Ms. Lynch said she would "be accepting" whatever Mr. Comey recommended.

While not recommending prosecution, Mr. Comey's statement on Tuesday was hardly an exoneration. In fact, his words - but also his omissions - raise additional questions:

• If there was no indictable offense, why did a former Clinton IT employee need a grant of immunity to cooperate? What laws did he break, or think he broke, on her behalf? (This same employee reportedly pleaded the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination in a deposition before a conservative watchdog group - his lawyers explained he wasn't going to cooperate with a politically motivated suit. Apparently under oath in a sworn deposition, people can refuse to answer or apparently lie about self-incrimination?)

• Also unaddressed were recent findings of the State Department's Inspector General. Among them that two IT representatives expressed "concerns about Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email account in separate meetings" and were both told the system had been reviewed and approved, which is not true. The staffers reportedly were also told not to discuss Ms. Clinton's email system. Mr. Comey made no reference to this. The Inspector General also found at least one phishing email message sent to Ms. Clinton with a suspicious link that should have been but wasn't reported - Mr. Comey said the FBI found "it's possible that hostile actors gained access to the account" but there was no sign it was successfully hacked, although he added it's unlikely there would be direct evidence by sophisticated hackers.

Ms. Clinton has a lot to answer. The FBI's findings contradict numerous public statements. It wasn't just one server, it turns out, but a series of them during her four years as secretary of state. The FBI found secret 110 emails in 52 email chains, with eight chains containing Top Secret information, eight containing Confidential information. Three emails among those recovered by the FBI also were Secret or Confidential when sent. (An additional 2,000 emails contained information that was subsequently deemed Confidential.)

The media are having a field day bashing Donald Trump, which he brings on himself through his continuous stream of tweets and proclivity for answering every reporter's question. Ms. Clinton, on the other hand, avoids the pesky media. It's a good bet that Mr. Trump's last press conference, impromptu or otherwise, was 10 minutes ago. Ms. Clinton's last press conference - believe it or not - was seven months ago. It's long past time that she gets the same media scrutiny as her opponent.

— The Worcester (Massachusetts) Telegram & Gazette